The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-12-07
MR.. RAPpApoRTs CHARGE OF LIBEL.
How 1t Is Viewed by the Sentinel and by the
Socialist Leaders Own Paper.

No time has been fixed yet for the trial of Mr..
Craig, proprietor of the Sentinel on Phil. Rap
paport's charge of criminal libel, but it is ex-
pected that the preliminary hearing of the case
will be held soon. The Sentinel follows up the
report which gave offense to Mr.. Rappaport with
a review of his course az Socialist, and states
that he was conspicuous in the reception given
to Parsons and Schwab in this city short time
before the Haymarket riot, and that while
attending the trial of the Anar-
chlsts In Chicago he presented
bouquet to August Spies. The article concludes
with the statement that the sentiments he was
credited with expressing are in strict accord
with previous speeches and writings by him,
and that 1T is difficult conceive of political
sentiment that would in the least injure his so
cial or political standing" Mr.. Craig is not dis
posed to be concillatory, but will, it is under
stood, have more to say about Mr. Rappaport
that will be likely to displease him quite as
much as the Questionable report of his speech.
The German Tribune. of which Mr. Kappa
port Is editor, yesterday said of the prosecution
OF Mr. Craig: 1.-The charge of Mr.. Rappaport
against the Sentinel is novel one To our
has been brought into court under such circum-
stances. The question whether the article is
libelous or not is to be decided Another ques-
ton which may come up is whether the proprietor
of q newspaper can be held criminally RESPONSE
bic for it's contents under all circumstances.
We shall whether the publisher of the
acknowledge
icious intent of the report, and we hope that
he will not shield himself cowardly behind
reporter, but that he will fairly and squarely
meet the issue, that is, whether its report
of the meeting In question was a calum-
NOUS lie. Mr.. Rappaport has not made the
charge in a spirit of vengeance, but only Tor the
purpose of showing how the public is deceived.
1t is possible that somebody imposed upon the
reporter of the Sentinel. that the report was not
invented in the office Of that paper, but we do
not doubt for moment that the Sentinel likes
believe such
that for the same partisan reasons it likes to
port Mr. happaport as an Anarchist who preach
es force Mr.. Rappaporr has often by word
of mouth and in writing declared that he is a de-
cided opponent to anarchism that the Sentinel
might know it if it wanted to know it
''If the Sentinel was imposed upon by some
mlScreant, then there is only one right course
for it. This is not to protect that miscreant but
on the contrary, to expose him, and to protect
itself against such impostors. The Journal was
recently imposed upon in similar manner. but
the Journal did not become malicious, and kept
itself within the bounds of decency. We BE-
leve that it is the duty of the to protect it
self against the impositions of malevolent indi-
viduals.
1.-THE Sentinel, however. in stead of taking this
honorable course. publishes another set of lies
this morning 1t does not say that its report
was correct. but takes recourse to the childish
excuse that the other speakers did not say it
was incorrect Perhaps they will yet Ridicu-
lous and absurd is the idea that Mr. Rappaport
is an Anarchist because one of his employees,
who is now dead, was. Such an argument de-
serves contempt. Mr.. Rappaport cannot say to-
day how his employees voted at the last election;
he never looked after the views of his employees
be buys their labor force but not their
sciences 1t is questionable whether
any such rule prevails in the Sentinel Office
The whole article in to-days Sentinel is like
that in yesterdays, wholesale lie. We hope
that Mr.. Craig will show ND a man of honor
and courage. that he will not take recourse to
trivialites, formalitles and technicaties and
thereby cause delays but that he will conduct
his defense in manner which will allow the
truth tc come out"